Originally Posted by Sakara=Excitement
The reason why all this factoring shouldn't be weighed heavily is that factoring is SUBJECTIVE.
Wins and losses are factual truths.
So Matt Hammill is a better fighter and should be ranked above Jon Jones (if he weren't retired)?
It's impossible for rankings to be completely objective and I actually think trying to do so makes them worse.
For example, based on what you are arguing, someone who had NEVER watched MMA and just had a list of fight results would theoretically make better rankings than someone who had actually seen all the fights and knew the context of each one. THAT would be completely objective.
On the other end of the spectrum, too much subjectivity leads to bias. Letting emotion get in the way of reason. Actually, it's kinda funny that you're supporting a completely objective approach considering you get pretty emotionally invested in any MMA topic, including rankings.
It's all a moot point though, because although we definitely take opinions on the rankings of certain fighters into consideration (Belfort's ranking was definitely a worthy topic of discussion), we're not really looking to change our views on 'ranking theory', so to speak. We've already established it's a mix of subjective and objective and have five members that weigh these to varying degrees while taking certain established criteria into consideration. Arguing the theory behind it is just beating a dead horse.